Impeaching the Credit of a Witness (s. 158) — BSA (Law of Evidence) Notes

Impeaching the Credit of a Witness (s. 158)

Cross-examination lets you ask a witness questions to dent his credibility. But what if you want to go further and actually prove he is not to be believed — call other people to say he is a liar, show he took a bribe, or produce an earlier statement that flatly contradicts his testimony? Section 158 is the section that tells you the exact three ways you are allowed to do that.

To impeach the credit of a witness is to attack his trustworthiness so the court gives his evidence less weight, or none. Section 158 [IEA s. 155] lists the ways this may be done — by the adverse party, or, with the court’s consent, by the party who called the witness (i.e. against a hostile witness).

The three ways (learn them as a list — the examiner marks them one by one):

Evidence of general unworthiness. By the evidence of persons who testify that, from their knowledge of the witness, they believe him to be unworthy of credit. (Such a witness may not, in chief, give his reasons; he may be asked them in cross-examination, and his answers cannot be contradicted — the Explanation.)
Proof of bribery. By proof that the witness has been bribed, has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence.
Proof of former inconsistent statements. By proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted. (This dovetails with s. 148 — cross-examination as to previous statements in writing — and is the mirror-image of the corroboration rule in s. 160.)

Two points to add for full marks:

Who may impeach. The adverse party may impeach as of right; the calling party needs the court’s consent (typically for a hostile witness).
The limit for a rape victim. Consistent with s. 48 and the proviso to s. 149, the credit of a victim of a sexual offence may not be impeached by attacking her character or previous sexual experience on the issue of consent.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the contradicted witness

Facts. A witness swears in court that he saw the accused at the scene at 9 pm. The defence produces his signed statement to the police saying he saw nothing and was not there. It also has evidence that the witness was paid to depose.

Rule. Section 158 lets the adverse party impeach credit by proof of former inconsistent statements (clause c) and by proof of bribery (clause b).

Apply. The signed police statement is a former statement inconsistent with his court testimony — admissible to impeach under s. 158(c). The evidence of payment is proof of a corrupt inducement under s. 158(b). Both attack his credit directly.

Conclusion. The defence may impeach the witness on both grounds; the court, seeing the contradiction and the bribe, may treat his evidence as unworthy of belief.

Section 158, BSA 2023: “The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him — (a) by the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit; (b) by proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence; (c) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted.”

In Simple Terms: There are exactly three ways to prove a witness should not be believed: call people who know him to be untrustworthy, show he was bribed, or produce an earlier statement of his that contradicts what he now says. Anyone opposing him may do this; his own side may do it only with the court’s permission.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Impeaching credit of a witness (s. 158)"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["(a) Others testify he is<br/>unworthy of credit"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["(b) Proof of bribery /<br/>corrupt inducement"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["(c) Proof of former<br/>INCONSISTENT statements"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> D["By: adverse party freely;<br/>calling party only with court's consent"]:::diamond
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef diamond fill:#FDECEA,stroke:#B22222,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Tahsildar Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) — a former statement can be used to contradict a witness only on points where it is genuinely inconsistent with his court testimony; this is the mechanism for impeaching credit by prior inconsistent statements.
Rammi alias Rameshwar vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) — minor contradictions do not by themselves destroy a witness’s credit; only material inconsistencies proved under s. 155 IEA (now s. 158) impeach his trustworthiness.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BSA (Law of Evidence) topics